Vecinos de una entidad

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so safety is fully covered and the description does not contradict them. It adds the shape of the result (each relation carries type and direction) but says nothing about truncation, default page size behavior with limit=25, or what happens for an entity with no relations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient rather than padded, though it is thin enough that it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 6-parameter graph-read tool with no output schema, the description gives the minimum: what the list contains. It leaves out pagination/limit semantics, direction semantics ('both' vs 'out'/'in'), and error behavior for unknown entities, which the agent must reconstruct from the schema alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'tipo y dirección' loosely maps to the edge_label and direction parameters but adds no semantics beyond the schema's own enum/default documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lista las entidades relacionadas con una entidad') and even characterizes the payload (type and direction of each relation). It does not, however, contrast itself with sibling graph tools such as osint_expand_entity or osint_find_paths, so the agent must infer the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: fetch the immediate neighborhood of a known entity_id. There is no statement of when to prefer this over osint_expand_entity, osint_find_paths, or osint_get_entity, and no prerequisite that entity_id must first come from a search/get call (that hint lives only in the schema).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.